4 ms·
> Another point: the court has no enforcement mechanism. I suspect if all the major European powers disagree with one of its rulings, they will easily be able t
by junto 11y ago
> Another point: the court has no enforcement mechanism. I suspect if all the major European powers disagree with one of its rulings, they will easily be able to flaunt it with impunity.
I don't think that is true. As it stand today, EU members are obliged to integrate these rulings into national law. It is one of the major nitpicks of the British Conservative party backbenchers, who wish to remove the United Kingdom from the "control" of the EHCR. This statement below sums it up better than I can:
> The Council of Europe has also made clear that the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, is not a substitute for national courts, but is subsidiary to national systems that safeguard human rights. The principles of law of the European Union, known as Community Law or European Union Law, also have direct effect in national courts, as European Union Law takes precedence over national law in EU member States. For these reasons, individuals and groups alleging violations of human rights provisions are required to first exhaust domestic remedies before a case can be considered admissible by a European tribunal.
http://www.stopvaw.org/enforcement_mechanisms_in_the_european_human_rights_system http://www.stopvaw.org/enforcement_mechanisms_in_the_europea...
- rmc 11y agoYes, but it can take years before countries have to do anything. Ireland has often waited years before implementing rulings, (e.g. for decriminalisation of homosexuality)
- denis1 11y agoYet it is still better than nothing. After the ECHR decision, the citizens should be able to challenge laws that do not respect their rights, and the governments can't hide behind stupid reasons that ignore the ruling of ECHR.
- ricksplat 11y agoYes - and this is often the case. There has been cases where legal decisions in Ireland have been appealed to the EUCHR and the decision there has overruled the Irish one. For instance http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/european-court-of-human-rights-underused-in-irish-law-lecturer-1.2083248 http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/european-c...
- masklinn 11y agoAnd countries will also try to weasel out of rulings on other countries (which apply pretty much verbatim to them) until the ECHR rules specifically against them[0] e.g. France asserting that Salduz v Turkey and Dayanan v Turkey (right to remain silent and to a lawyer from the earliest stages of even temporary custody) didn't apply to it because the rulings were against Turkey. [0] or their supreme court tells the government to lay off the crack pipe
- pjc50 11y agoRussia is ahead of the UK on that one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35007059 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35007059 "Russia passes law to overrule European human rights court" because it ruled that Russian surveillance of newspaper editors was a human rights violation.
- ajuc 11y agoAt least the violations are obvious when countries have to pass law to bypass this ruling.
- venomsnake 11y agoThe only ways to obligate a country to do something is to have other country willing to impose sanctions or war. And no one is willing to do that inside or outside EU.
- restalis 11y ago"EU members are obliged to integrate these rulings into national law." No! Any court's mandate is to resolve disputes according to the existing laws. It is not to issue/create them. The lawmakers are the ones that may use the judicial system as a quality assurance mechanism for their adopted laws and maybe to consider fixing something along the way. A court is merely a hand of law, not a law maker. So, getting back to the European Court of Human Rights, there is a set of stipulations under the name of Human Rights that the adherent countries already endorsed and (supposedly) adopted into their national laws. There aren't any rulings to be integrated into national laws, there may exist only rulings (compatible with existing laws) that need merely enforcement on local level!
- denis1 11y agoI believe post you're replying to is in fact correct. In cases when national laws are not compatible with ECHR rulings, the laws are the one to be changed (repealed or adjusted to match the ECHR interpretation).